1. I'm not sure how Hillary's being a Senator from New York and Bill's seeing Ground Zero and the victims' families disproves the inside job theory — though it explains why he's especially outraged by it.

2. What is the connection between thinking 9/11 was an inside job and supporting Ron Paul? Amorphous nuttiness?

3. Why do Ron Paul supporters think it's a good idea to harass people? There's also this other story today that they chased after Sean Hannity. Watch the video at the link — they look like the mob from the movie "Frankenstein," but with American flags instead of torches. (And look at all those commenters at the link — to Crooks and Liars — who seem to think it's just great for a mob to rush after someone and cause for hilarity if they scare him — as long as you hate him.)

94 comments:

OK, there are times, no matter your politics, that you have to love Bill. This was one of them. Everyone should talk to the truthers like that. Who will get here first? A truther, a Ron Paul supporter, or a combination of the two?

Ron Paul is on the lunatic right fringe. He is just as dangerous as the lunatic left fringe. Maybe more so, as he raises vast amounts of cash in short periods of time.

Clinton being the Senator has nothing to do with 9/11, except that her husband is responsible for it through his neglect. What does his visiting there for a photo-op have to do with anything? This guy and his wife are the Forrest Gump of politics.

Why do Ron Paul supporters think it's a good idea to harass people? There's also this other story today that they chased after Sean Hannity. Watch the video at the link — they look like the mob from the movie "Frankenstein," but with American flags instead of torches.

There really is something a little scary about that video. Maybe it's the darkness and the confusion created by filming while running, but it does look like something just a step short of mob violence.

With respect to the commenters and C&L, many of them are Paulbots. The Paulbots use Google Alerts to find references made to Paul anywhere on the Internet. Once the spot something, they descend like a pack of hungry wolves and, as you say, begin a protracted campaign of harassment and advocacy.

(By the way, video of Bill O'Reilly "shoving" the Obama staffer can now be found on YouTube. It would be a useful addition to your previous posts about the incident. O'Reilly says the staffer was violating the US Constitution by standing in front of his camera.)

Wow. I am several decades too young to remember lynching but I imagine this recreates the mob mentality that made it so horrific. I predict that before the general election goes down, some Ron Paul supporter slash 9-11 truther will snap and go on a shooting spree. Looking back on that prediction, I want to delete it because it seems silly, but I honestly see it happening.

"And look at all those commenters at the link — to Crooks and Liars — who seem to think it's just great for a mob to rush after someone and cause for hilarity if they scare him — as long as you hate him"

That's how thugs operate- from gay-bashers to Islamoid mobs to urban "anarchists". Unreasonable people with unreasonable ideas know that they cannot win over people with the power of their ideas, so they resort to the only blunt tool in their arsenal: violence. Physical and psychic violence, whatever is necessary.

Obama is the candidate for people who hope for change. Paul is the candidate for people who hope to see "Loose Change" at their campaign events.

"O'Reilly says the staffer was violating the US Constitution by standing in front of his camera.)"

Oreilly might want to pick up a copy of the Constitution sometime. Is he actually making the argument that the staffer is acting as a agent of the United States Government and as such was actively blocking the camera? Even if all that was true, I still don't see it. Now if he was threatened with arrest and his camera confiscated, then he has a complaint.

I predict that before the general election goes down, some Ron Paul supporter slash 9-11 truther will snap and go on a shooting spree.

I fear the same. This is going to be an enormously emotionally charged election, especially if Obama gets elected. The Republicans will absolutely destroy Obama by November; it's going to be very ugly.

Incidentally, the National Review's editor, Jonah Goldberg, has already predicted that "certain segments of American political life will become completely unhinged" if Obama should lose the election, leading to "social unraveling." Of course, this isn't the first time Goldberg has made comments about the violent inclinations of "certain segments" of the population. (He was the first in the media to blame the victims of Katrina for the disaster which befell them, publishing this racist gem while the eye of the hurricane was still approaching New Orleans.)

I don't think Goldberg was referring to African-Americans overall or even Urban African-Americans specifically. I think he was talking about the political spectrum, a particular part of it. I suppose there's not much point in saying that. So it goes.

"I had no choice but to defend the U.S. Constitution" is not the first, nor will it be the last, doody-headed (that'd be the technical, if immature, term for it) comment we hear from O'Reilly. Or a host of other media types.

Still, the incident itself was way overblown, not remarkable, not unusual, and misreported by people who ought to have known better.

"certain segments of American political life will become completely unhinged"Well, they will. Some are already there. What's his name? Glennwald?

Obama seems like a good guy, I just disagree with him on policy. As a south park republican, I am leaning hard towards Thompson. I would like to see a race focusing on the differences in policy, rather than focusing on how the opponent is evil personified. Then no matter which way the election goes, both sides realize that is the way we do things in this country and if they want a change, they got a shot in 4 short years.

Oh, I followed the link on the Goldberg thing, and I am missing the racist part. I hesitate to comment about it without knowing the context which isn't available at that link, but it appears the worst that could be said is it was incredibly tasteless. Tasteless isnt exactly in short supply on the internet on either side.

"If the staffer was using and hiding behind the protection of the secret service in blocking FOX's and O'Reilly's camera access, that's sufficient government involvement."

Was he? And no it's not. As long as he doesn't touch the camera, he has no responsibility to stand where the media prefers him. As stated, if he, under the color of authority, grabs the camera or throws them in jail, we got a problem.

The champagne is making you generous to Tee Lucienne -- I can't be so nice in my interpretation of phrases like "certain segment" and "social unraveling." He's smart enough to know exactly how those words would be interpreted.

I can't be so nice in my interpretation of phrases like "certain segment" and "social unraveling." He's smart enough to know exactly how those words would be interpreted.

He probably could have guessed that lefties would misinterpret his statement that way. After all, they've had a hate-on for his whole family ever since his mom got involved in the Clinton scandals.

But the relevant question is -- why should he care that he'll be misinterpreted? Nobody with common sense thinks Goldberg is a racist, and his prediction that segments of the electorate will absolutely lose their shit if Obama doesn't win is probably accurate. After all, they lost it after Gore and Kerry were defeated, and nobody actually *liked* those two losers. Obama's the Golden Boy of the Democratic Party. If HE loses tens of millions of Democrats are going to rush to the haberdashers to fit themselves for tinfoil hats. We'll be hearing about racist Republicans and conspiracies to steal the 2008 election for the next twenty freaking years.

Unfortunately, it's all too small a step from believing your government participated in an event like 9/11 to taking "action" against said government. Personally, I used to think people who affected such postures were harmless, but seeing someone like Ron Paul generate the support and money he has makes me pause. The absolute loonies amongst us seem to be multiplying exponentially.

"If HE loses tens of millions of Democrats are going to rush to the haberdashers to fit themselves for tinfoil hats. We'll be hearing about racist Republicans and conspiracies to steal the 2008 election for the next twenty freaking years."

Rev, I think you give those Dems too much credit - I think we'll hear about it for at least another 40 years (Dear God, spare me, please...) just as we still hear Sen. Dirksen's rounding up Republican votes for the Civil Rights Act was a nefarious Racist Republican Scheme to steal the White Racist Vote from Democrats...

After all, they've had a hate-on for his whole family ever since his mom got involved in the Clinton scandals.

What, are you going to start a new little buzz phrase, Goldberg Derangement Syndrome? Yep, the left just irrationally criticizes that nice mother and son.

I didn't call Goldberg racist, Revenant, so don't put words in my mouth. His wording is inflammatory, and I don't care what his motives are, whether it's out of racism, partisanship, or just being a pompous nitwit in general.

Here is a link to Goldberg's complete post. I'll grant he doesn't come right out and use the N word; racism is much more coded and subtle these days. But between this and his more egregious comments about the Superdome residents, Goldberg leaves a bad taste in my mouth. He does anyway, because he's a conservative Republican, but these comments don't help.

I will say that the Katrina disaster was the first time in my life I'd seen the victims of a disaster attacked in the media, and it was relentless. Goldberg was first out of the gate blaming the victims for their own plight with that thoroughly revolting post.

Of course, longtime Althouse readers are aware of Goldberg's passionate defense of the necessary legal framework that made Jim Crow possible, and longs for a return to it. Ann slapped him down pretty effectively, I thought. Kudos to her!

What, are you going to start a new little buzz phrase, Goldberg Derangement Syndrome? Yep, the left just irrationally criticizes that nice mother and son.

I don't recall saying anything nice about Jonah's mother. But the Left's hatred for Jonah is neither rational nor justified, and is indeed based in his relation to Lucienne (which is why you keep bringing it up).

You spoke up in defense of Verso's claim that Goldberg was being racist. If you didn't agree with that, you should have made your disagreement clear. I am not responsible for your lack of clarity.

His wording is inflammatory

Only to race-obsessed lefties with their panties in a bunch over the evils of the Goldberg clan. Rational people didn't read his comment as inflammatory, especially since -- as I noted -- it was almost certainly completely accurate.

Or they could take a tip from the GOP and rush the poll commissioners' offices and demand they stop counting votes.

Yeah, that's a tragic story, Beth. Of course I live in California, where the Democratic Party encourages illegal immigrants to vote and does everything it can to make that easy to do, so forgive me if I'm unsympathetic to your complaints about Republican attempts to prevent fraudulent votes from being counted.

Yeah, they actually wrote blogs about it and said some bad shit on the radio. They definitly "lost it".

Over seven years later you still can't mention the 2000 election without some left-winger bleating about how Bush's victory was the result of a conspiracy to steal the election. So yeah -- you lost it. A key sign of losing it is when reality hasn't penetrated your skull the better part of a decade later.

Rev, I think you're more invested in this than I am. You seem a bit peeved. Oh well.

--If you think JG draws critique only out of irrational hatred, you must never read him.

--I didn't defend or even respond to verso. I responded to reader_iam and her take on JG's words.

--No matter how many times you declare your view rational and everyone else just nuts, it doesn't make your point any more persuasive.

--You can choose not to be bothered by paid political operatives interfering with the counting of the vote. It's a bad choice, but go ahead. Did you take the same position on the Democrats trying to keep Florida from counting military votes cast hours after the deadline?

I frequently enjoy your comments, Rev, not out of agreement, but just because I sometimes like the way you write. I'm always mystified when you go off on a deep-end rant and turn personally mean.

Frank Luntz encounters a Ron Paul crowd. This time, I'm on Luntz's side. He kept his voice very low, a good technique for keeping a crowd from growing too boisterous. I love how the one guy in the crowd refers to Ron Paul as "America's savior," and blames Luntz for a decision made by Fox News to exclude Paul from the debate.

If you think JG draws critique only out of irrational hatred, you must never read him.

I'm talking about the accusations that he's a racist and/or using racially inflammatory language, not "critique". Obviously everybody gets "critiqued".

No matter how many times you declare your view rational and everyone else just nuts, it doesn't make your point any more persuasive.

I think you are distinctly in the minority in thinking Goldberg's statement was inflammatory, so I don't see how you can claim that I'm saying "everyone else" is nuts. The number of people who are nuts on this particular topic is fairly small. :)

Did you take the same position on the Democrats trying to keep Florida from counting military votes cast hours after the deadline?

I am more bothered by foreigners voting in our elections than I am by citizens missing a deadline, so no, I don't take quite the same position. While it is true that both the soldier's vote and the illegal immigrant's vote are invalid, the former was at least cast by someone who SHOULD have been allowed to vote, whereas the latter was cast by someone who should not only be disallowed from voting, but disallowed from being in the country at all.

I doubt it's a tiny minority, Rev, but like I said, there's plenty of election left and we'll either see more of what I'm perceiving over time, or your perceptions will hold true and we won't. We'll no doubt disagree over what is and isn't coded language about race and gender.

As for elections, I'd like to see everyone follow the rules. The military voters should be allowed to vote -- by the deadline. But never, ever, should we allow an organized, paid, political gang to intimidate the vote commissioners and stop the counting of any votes, legal or illegal. We have laws, we have courts to resolve any issues that come out in the vote, and none of us should accept bullying mobs.

What's your best and most comprehensive evidence for the rightwing assertion that "the Democratic Party encourages illegal immigrants to vote and does everything it can to make that easy to do."

My personal favorite example of the Democratic Party encouraging illegal immigrants to vote happened right here in my local Congressional district, when the Democratic candidate to replace the jailed "Duke" Cunningham responded to a Hispanic foreigner who said "I want to help, but I don't have papers" by saying "you don't need papers for voting". She didn't know she was being taped. :)

How many have been arrested or caught in this fraud?

Apparently you don't understand how voting works here. All you have to do is tell the person your name and sign next to it. They don't check ID, nor do they make any effort to confirm that you are (or aren't) the person you claim to be. So how on Earth would you ever catch or arrest someone voting fraudulently? You don't even know who actually voted!

Bush also reiterated something we heard repeatedly over the last two weeks, and that it is fundamentally unfair to be conducting recounts in only a couple of Florida counties. We do not know if this is setting the stage for a constitutional challenge, a federal court case, challenging what the Florida Supreme Court did last night, because we simply don't know exactly what the lawyers and Governor Bush are going to decide to do next.

He also reiterated something else we've heard, which is his belief that he and Secretary Cheney won the state of Florida fair and square, and these efforts to have recounts hand recounts, with changing standards, are simply an effort by the Gore campaign to undermine the legitimate result of this election --

this is part of the response by the Republicans which can be found at the link-

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If Vice President Gore is seeking some common ground, I propose a good place to start. He should join me in calling upon all appropriate authorities in Florida to make sure that overseas military ballots that were signed and received on time count in this election. Our men and women in uniform overseas should not lose their right to vote. I hope the vice president will personally support me in this call.

The Bush campaign has been charging since Saturday that the Gore campaign was conducting a systematic effort to reject those military ballots, simply because they did not have postmarks.

What did Gore do?

He took the military ballots through the Panhandle county court system for the "postmark" escape clause.

the military mail sytem doesn't use "postmarks" -but Gore didn't give a damn.

Ever ask yourself why Gore wouldn't want military votes to count?

Why wouldn't Gore want MILITARY VOTES TO COUNT?

Guess what I was there and I was at Eglin AFB Okaloosa County and I watched the democrats charter Leer jets from Atlanta to the tune of $40,000-to bring lawyers in from Atlanta into Valparaiso airport so that they could challenge every damn absentee military vote in Okaloosa county-but the press didn't show that so it didn't much matter-invisible.

But never, ever, should we allow an organized, paid, political gang to intimidate the vote commissioners and stop the counting of any votes, legal or illegal.

If you're referring to the Dade County incident of 2000 I have to cry foul on your description of the incident. The mob halted an illegal selective *recount* of around 10,000 ballots that had already been counted once already. Obviously mob action is bad, but since the courts ultimately agreed that the mob's objections were legitimate it is hard to get TOO upset about it.

We have laws, we have courts to resolve any issues that come out in the vote, and none of us should accept bullying mobs.

One might say that if the laws and the courts had been obeyed to begin with, the mob wouldn't have formed in the first place. :)

That being said, a bullying mob that prevents 10,000 legal votes from being counted is no worse than a government which allows 10,000 illegal votes to be cast and counted -- and considerably better than a government which allows hundreds of thousands of illegal votes to be cast and counted.

It was never a flippin' question- that the military votes didn't get there in time.

Talk about revisionist history.

Hell the Gore campaign doesn't even say that one. That was never contested by anybody, or any party.

And add to the irony-

The Democratic party is PUNISHING Florida this year for having their primary early and refusing to count those delegates during the convention.

From-The Tampa Tribune

The Democratic National Committee, which accused Florida of failing to count every vote during the 2000 presidential election, says it won't count the votes of Florida Democrats in the 2008 presidential primary.

That's right. The party that castigated Florida for disenfranchising voters now plans to disenfranchise every Democratic voter who participates in Florida's primary.

What hypocrisy.

The DNC treads dangerous ground by snubbing Florida voters at a time when Republicans are running hard.

Although Florida is a battleground state, it leans Republican in presidential politics. In the last eight presidential elections, only two Democrats have won the Sunshine State: Bill Clinton in 1996 and Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Oh, Rev,If you have a spare moment, could you tell me what you know about the theft of a US Senate seat in New Hampshire by the Republican Party in 2002? Wasn't it funny how the guy who orchestrated that crime was promoted by the Bush Administration to work on the 2004 campaign?

Surely, you are outraged.

See: When Democrats talk about voter fraud, they can point to actual examples. How about you?

madawaskan,Thank you for your concern about how the Democratic Party is conducting its primaries this season. If you need extra fuel for your outrage, they are doing the same thing in Michigan.

The national Democratic party sets the rules. Both Michigan's and Florida's state party organizations were told that their votes would not be counted if they insisted on changing the date of their primaries. They chose to ignore this, and changed the dates anyway.

Nevertheless, your concern for the Democrats in Florida is great appreciated.

The far right is populated with conspiracy theories, isolationism, racism and fear of government. Ron Paul's supporters include a lot of these elements. He's picked up the right-wing wackos.

The whole 'libertarian' thing is camouflage. It's just the same far-right bullshit. Look up Lyndon LaRouche. Or the militia movement (now it's the 'North American Union' instead of 'New World Order.') Or, for something milder, Pat Buchanan. There are common themes running all the way back to the John Birch society, and beyond.

It's not new, and it's not mainstream. It's an expression of the frustrated far-right that's been shut out since they got ejected from the party when the Paleoconservatives lost.

I wouldn't care about Ron Paul, except that I've run into enough of his fans to make me intensely dislike the whole phenomenon. They can't win, but they can be really, really annoying.

"it is fundamentally unfair to be conducting recounts in only a couple of Florida counties."

When I first read this, I was under the impression this was the reason given by one of the Democrats you cited directly above the quoted material. I'm glad I followed the link and read the page because it was Jeane Meserve of CNN who said that.

Regardless, the point remains: The Republican rioters -- Congressional staff bussed in from Washington DC to pose as Florida voters -- are widely believed to have intimidated the canvassing board.

"The Republicans marched on the counting room en masse, chanting "Three Blind Mice" and "Fraud, Fraud, Fraud." True, it wasn't exactly Chicago 1968, but these are Republicans. Their normal idea of political protest is filling out the complaint card at a Marriott.

"They also let it be known that 1,000 local Cuban-American Republicans were on the way--not a happy prospect for Anglo judges who must run for re-election. Inside the room, GOP lawyers also pointed out that the law--recall that quaint concept--required that any recount include all ballots.

"The canvassers then stunned everybody and caved in. They cancelled any recount and certified the original Nov. 7 election vote, claiming that the Sunday deadline didn't allow enough time to recount everywhere. Republicans rejoiced and hugged like they'd just won the lottery."

Frankly, the atmosphere of impending mob violence orchestrated by the Republican Party reminds me a lot of the Ron Paul mob chasing Sean Hannity.

If you get a chance sometime, perhaps you can tell me what you know about the Republican purge of African Americans from the voter rolls in Florida.

Well, Verso, according to the article you linked it was convicted felons who were purged from the voter rolls. So let me start off by saying that I'm amused that you consider "African American" to be a synonym for "criminal".

That being said, even if it was the case that the article in The Nation was both truthful and accurate -- which would certainly be a first -- my reaction would be "who cares"? Boo hoo, felons deprived of the "right" to vote, how sad. I am amused, though, at the article's claim that criminals overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

could you tell me what you know about the theft of a US Senate seat in New Hampshire by the Republican Party in 2002?

I think your link's broken, Verso, because it just took me to an article about Republicans messing with a "get out the vote" effort. Did you mean to link to an actual example of election fraud? Because it's a bit silly to claim that an election was "stolen" based solely on the theory that Democrats are incapable of voting unless someone calls them on the phone and tells them who to vote for. :)

It is both a far-right and a far-left trope. The far right hates Israel because it is full of Jews; the far left hates them because America supports them. Of course, lately the two have been bleeding together, so it is common to see lefties peddling blood libel and right-wingers decrying American "imperialism".

Rev said: it's a bit silly to claim that an election was "stolen" based solely on the theory that Democrats are incapable of voting unless someone calls them on the phone and tells them who to vote for.

I don't actually expect you to care about this -- just the opposite, in fact. So, in this respect you are meeting my expectations. I am not trying to make you care about your party's crimes. I just want to point out that Democrats can point to actual, factual examples of fraud. If you can do the same, I'm all ears.

"Why do Ron Paul supporters think it's a good idea to harass people? There's also this other story today that they chased after Sean Hannity. Watch the video at the link — they look like the mob from the movie "Frankenstein," but with American flags instead of torches. (And look at all those commenters at the link — to Crooks and Liars — who seem to think it's just great for a mob to rush after someone and cause for hilarity if they scare him — as long as you hate him.)"

Why do wingnuts on Althouse and elsewhere think it helps their case to be as obnoxious as possible, to be mocking and condescending, and to demagogue non-stop?

The Ron Paul supporters treated Hannity with EXACTLY the same respect that he and his buddy Levin have showed for Ron Paul.

You can disagree with his positions, but they are all well reasoned and rational and grow out of his reading (very similar to our founders) of the Constitution. He did get 10% in Iowa; let's see how he does tonight.

The "crazies" are a small % of his supporters, most of whom are normal Americans who would like to see a truly humble foreign policy with small government at home, as evisioned by our founders.

Wow--what a trip down memory lane this thread has been: the 2000 election and recount fiasco; the Goldberg family, 9/11. Let it go, people...let it go! The only significant piece of news: Happy anniversary Reader.

There's also a great quote out there from some economist who says, "It may not be a recession, but it will feel like a recession." That's like saying I"m not going to punch you in the face, but it will feel like I'm punching you in the face.

Prepare to hear a lot more from the Paulies...and probably about the Mormon policy of food storage for hard times....

If you listen to Sean's radio program his mantra regards the "great american" theme...as in:

caller: Your a Great American Sean and its an honor to talk with you.

Sean: Well you're a Great American

ad naseum...

The following took place Friday:

Caller: Your a great americanSean: David, thank you. You are a great American.Caller (David): I'm for Rudy...Sean: (interrupts) well he is my guy you know...Caller: yes and as a two time convicted offended, I knew that with Rudy in charge of NYC, I would be crazy to have worked there.....

"But never, ever, should we allow an organized, paid, political gang to intimidate the vote commissioners and stop the counting of any votes, legal or illegal. We have laws, we have courts to resolve any issues that come out in the vote, and none of us should accept bullying mobs."

I sympathize with Paul, though I am very much turned off by his followers.

Last summer, I was out for river cruise with my wife, kids and sister in law and these Paul supporters, complete with big sign, were waiting at the dock when we returned. They got into everyone's face as we got off the boat.

I explained to one that I was not in the mood to discus politics that day (to his shock, I had said I heard of Ron Paul). His response was to get more in my face.

Ron Paul is very intelligent, engage him on the issues, it'll be more challenging than the smearing I've read here.

Ron Paul fans *are* pretty annoying, they are rabid and obsessive. I like the guy for a lot of reasons, but particularly for his anti-War and anti-establishment arguments. The problem with libertarians and the internet cult is that they tend to be very intelligent and knowledgeable but are extremely socially awkward.

Most "nerds" or "geeks" tend to this kind of activity and that is why they end up not being in the 'main stream'. The public wants polished politicians and people they can relate to, but when the 'spammers' are at work they come off as highly annoying and uncompromising on their support for Ron Paul. Most Libertarians I know have higher IQs and understanding of American history and government than most liberals and conservatives that I know. Part of the reason for their acumen has to deal with how the left-right ideologies appeals to emotion that inevitably pushes people to support one party or another. This kind of appeal to emotion rarely leads to thinking about the issues, the arguments and how they relate to 'reality'.

However, whereas emotion can liven up party politics, libertarians lack of emotion or 'connection' with people tend to send them off track politically. An analogy using the law classroom: no one likes the jackass sitting at the front of the class who obviously reads all of the material and can answer 'everything' definitively with full citations to authoritative sources.

It is the inability to connect with people and understand that not everything is black and white, that inevitably inhibits these peoples' ability to achieve anything significant.